QUESTIONS: The Gemara derives from the verse, "v'Hayah Bicha Chet" (lit. "It
shall be a sin in you"), that when a person transgresses the Isur of Bal
T'acher and delays bringing a Korban, it is only the person who has sinned -
- the animal itself does not become Pasul as a result of being delayed, and
it is still brought as a Korban. The Gemara asks that this verse is not
necessary to teach us that, because we already know from a different verse
that a Korban which is delayed does not become Pasul. The Gemara cites a
verse which compares Bechor to Ma'aser. This comparison teaches that Bechor
is similar to Ma'aser in that a Bechor which was not sacrificed within a
year does not become Pasul and may still be brought as a Korban, just like
Ma'aser does not become Pasul and may be eaten two or three years after it
was separated.
RASHI explains why we would have thought that a Bechor becomes Pasul after a
year. He says that if a year has gone by, then it is likely that three
Regalim have also passed, because one year usually includes three Regalim
(and thus the Isur of Bal T'acher was transgressed). In his previous
comments (DH sh'Evrah Shenaso), Rashi explains that the Mitzvah is to eat
the Bechor within one year of its birth (as the Mishnah says in Bechoros
26b). There are a number of questions that may be asked on Rashi.
(a) First, Rashi seems to be saying that the Bechor should become Pasul
after a year passes because a year usually includes three Regalim. However,
it is clear that there are times when a year does *not* include three
Regalim, as the Gemara explains later (6b; for example, a leap year).
Accordingly, what does the Gemara mean when it asks that we already have a
verse teaching us that an animal is not Pasul if Bal T'acher was
transgressed? Perhaps the verse of Bechor teaches that the Korban is valid
even though it was not brought within a year in a case where three Regalim
did not yet pass, and the verse of "v'Hayah Bicha Chet" teaches that the
Korban is valid even when three Regalim also passed! (TUREI EVEN)
(b) Why does Rashi introduce the Mitzvah to eat a Bechor within a year of
its birth? It has nothing to do with the Sugya. Rashi should have explained
that the Gemara is only discussing whether or not the passage of three
Regalim will invalidate a Korban. It is not discussing the Mitzvah of eating
a Bechor within its first year, which is a new concept that is specific to
Bechoros! (CHIDUSHIM U'VI'URIM)
(c) The Gemara says later (6b) that the Isur of Bal T'acher also applies if
a year passes, even if three Regalim do not occur in that time (see Rashi
there, DH Echad Malei). Why does Rashi here have to say that within a year,
it is likely that three Regalim pass? If a year passes, then even without
three Regalim there is an Isur of Bal T'acher! (PNEI YEHOSHUA)
ANSWERS:
(a) The CHESHEK SHLOMO explains that the Isur of eating a Bechor after its
year has passed is learned from the verse which requires a person to eat it
within the year. That Isur, therefore, is an Isur of *Achilah*. Since one
cannot eat an animal without first slaughtering it, then one must bring the
Bechor as a Korban within the year and eat it. It is clear that this
Halachah is not related to its status as a Korban, since the Bechor must be
eaten within the year even if it gets a Mum. In the case of a Bechor, since
the only Isur involved with a year passing is an Isur Achilah, there is no
need for a verse to teach us that if the Bechor was left for more than a
year it is still a valid Korban. Nothing wrong was done with the Korban
itself that would make us think that it is Pasul! The Korban Bechor should
still be valid even if a year has passed. The only reason the Gemara thought
that the Bechor would become Pasul is because of a different Isur -- the
Isur of Bal T'acher, which is not an Isur of Achilah but rather related to
the laws of bringing the Korban.
This answers the first question. The verse that says that a Bechor is like
Ma'aser must be teaching something about Bal T'acher, that when three
Regalim pass the animal is still valid. Otherwise, the verse would not be
needed, because there is no reason to assume that a Bechor is Pasul after
the passage of a year.
(b) Why does Rashi mention the requirement to eat a Bechor within a year of
its birth? Rashi is just explaining why the Beraisa uses the wording "within
its year" ("Toch Shenaso") if the point is to teach that the Bechor is valid
after the passage of *three Regalim* and not to teach that it is valid after
the passage of one year. Rashi says that since the Torah requires that a
Bechor be eaten within a year, even though the Halachah that we are learning
from the verse has nothing to do with the Halachah of eating the Bechor
within a year, nevertheless the Beraisa uses the wording of "within a year"
to refer to three Regalim because that is the phrase commonly used with
reference to the Halachos of a Bechor. The real intention of the Beraisa,
though, is to teach that a Bechor is not Pasul when *three Regalim* have
passed within its year.
(c) The third question is answered by the words of Rashi later (6b, DH Man
Tana). Rashi there says that all of the Tana'im until that point in the
Gemara maintain that the Isur of Bal T'acher occurs only when three Regalim
pass, but not when one year passes without three Regalim. It is another, as
yet unmentioned, Tana who teaches that even the passage of a year without
three Regalim constitutes Bal T'acher.